Iran: We Will Never Bow to USA

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Iran loves to play the oil card.

US asked Russia not to invite Iran to a China conference asking them not to side with a terrorist nation. Russia and China both ignored the US request and went ahead and invited President Ahmedinejad to attend.

Russia and China are siding with Iran.

Iran is not budging from its stance.

Iranian top religious cleric has declared that Iran will never bow before America.

The Tehran Ayatollah has even threatened President Bush not to make a single wrong move.

I think war with Iran is now imminent.

US is being humiliated by a third world nation.


news.bbc.co.uk...

news.bbc.co.uk...

news.bbc.co.uk...



[edit on 15-6-2006 by mr conspiracy]




posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 04:00 PM
link   
I really hope you're right mr conspiracy.

The USA only invades Countries that can't fight back, so Iranians are going to be allowed to live in peace if China and Russia are with them.

I really hope we aren't going to see more crimes against Humanity by our "Good Friend" the President of the USA.

All the best,

Leif



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 04:15 PM
link   
I agree. The last thing we need to do is start another war. With Russia and China backing Iran, we should have bowed out gracefully. Not that I agree with getting involved. But, unfortunately that's not the way our Administration works. They, and from now on, to me it's they, are bent on doing what they want to do, and making other countries that aren't in tow to refrain from exactly what they do. Next, weapons in space.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 04:17 PM
link   
I don't think war with Iran is likely.

The hardcore neocon crowd would like nothing better than to continue "redrawing the map of the Middle East", however the US really isn't in a position to pull it off. Not enough forces for an invasion and occupation, and airstrikes alone are unlikely to do much more than set back the Iranian nuke program temporarily, if that. Not to mention the catastrophic release of radioactive material you'd get by bombing nuke sites.

It's clear there is little international support for sanctions against Iran, let alone military action (Israel doesn't count). And without some conveniently timed 9-11 type attack that can be blamed on Iran, domestic political opposition is likely to be strong as well.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 05:55 PM
link   
While I do not agree totally with leif on us invading only countires that cannot fight back. He does have a small point. The major countries that we have gotten into it since WW2 has been zero. It is my hope that Iran will not have to bow down (so to speak). However if Iran cannot willing comply to the UN then something has to be done. I think that if Iran were to get a nuke then the entire face of the middle east will change and probably not for the better. Our administration will not back out gracefully. I agree. The present administration is not going to appear weak to anyone. So we'll probably get in a scrap before it's all said and done. I honestly hope that if it comes right down to it and Iran has to bow down to the UN then I hope they do it with pride and head held high. If not and they were (god forbid) to get stupid, then by all means knock them on their ass. Be damned on russia and china. The whole thing is about oil. So they want our food, we want the oil. Trade for trade. But it will never get there or to that point. The religious mullahs in Iran are as fanatical as the president of Iran and just about as dangerous as our own administration is at present. Never know though. I hope that somewhere someone actually takes the time to think before doing something stupid on either side of the big pond.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 06:47 PM
link   
How is the USA being humiliated by Iran?

I really need to know or is that just a macho inflamatory statement from you?

I don't feel humiliated.


Iran doesn't need to bow to the US. So what is the big deal.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by sbob
How is the USA being humiliated by Iran?

I really need to know or is that just a macho inflamatory statement from you?

I don't feel humiliated.


Iran doesn't need to bow to the US. So what is the big deal.
Amen to this. If we don't feel humiliated how can we be? I don't really care who Iran bows down to. Matter of fact it would be better if no single country had to bow down to another.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 07:57 PM
link   
I agree that Iran is effectivley making the US look silly.
Just because you dont feel it, doesnt mean the world hasnt lost great respect for the mighty superpower.

I mean, america got on such a high horse, created such a macho effort to remove the THREAT saddam was,

He wasnt ACTIVLEY announcing to the world he had nuclear material.It was all suspicion.
He wasnt ACTIVLEY declaring death to US allies, it was just rumours.

Yet we invaded them and totally shot the american might

NOW, there's a country DECLARING they are researching nuclear material.
They have ACTUALLY declared DEATH to an american ally

And America, because its soooo tied up in Iraq, doesnt have the ability to do what is needed to be done to iran. I mean we went into Iraq on the ASSUMPTION they had WMD.. and we knew full well Iraq didnt have the military capability or economic power to cause strife in the region.

Yet, Iran HAS the military capability, has declared there hatred of the US and Israel for decades.. yet all the US can do is sit by and watch.

Every time the Iran president spouts rhetoric, it embarresses the USA

God Bless America!
Because Your going to be beaten by Iran.,



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Russia and China BACK Iran?? How do you know this?? Any links to back it up??

Can't stand people who ASS-U-ME things that most of the time is not true.



posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 08:08 PM
link   


posted by xmotex

I don't think war with Iran is likely.

The neo-con crowd would like nothing better than to continue "redrawing the map” of the Middle East, however the US really isn't in a position to pull it off. Not enough forces for an invasion and air strikes alone are unlikely to do much . . It's clear there is little international support for sanctions against Iran . . without a conveniently timed 9-11 attack that can be blamed on Iran, domestic political opposition is likely to be strong as well. [Edited by Don W]



Right on all counts, Xmotex. America’s Gang of Four, Geo W, VP Cheney, the Oberfuhrer (Rumsfeld) and Condo Rice, had a vision of a New World Order as King George 1 uttered it a decade earlier. They convinced themselves despite very sincere warnings to the contrary from Sec. Powell and CIA Tenant, as well as the Joint Chiefs, that they knew more than the others and had a handle on this democracy thing. My only take on Tony Blair is that the UN had quietly appointed him the ‘designated driver’ for Geo W and the rampaging US draft-dodging leaders.

Without a contingency plan, we are now in Joel Chandler Harris’ Uncle Remus’ Briar Patch with Tar Baby (Iraq) and Ber’ Rabbit (Geo W). The harder he try, the stuck-er he get.

Sure, eliminating Zarqawi was a plus for the nearly defunct Operation Iraqi Freedom. As I posted yesterday, it is still not clear whether US offers of gold or the Sunni’s sending a conciliatory signal to the Shia was responsible for the well placed two 500 pound bombs. And as if by magic, we “found” enough documents to locate 17 other “al Qaeda in Iraq” sites. With a run of luck like that, I’d be at Monte Carlo in a heartbeat.

So now we wait. To see if this really is the beginning of the end as Sir Winston Churchill encouraged at The Lord Mayor's Luncheon, November 10, 1942, “Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. but it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”


[edit on 6/15/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 12:14 AM
link   
I hope that as was said that Iran does not have to bow to anyone "BUT" if they did so for the UN then okay "BUT" with head held high.
As for Iran beating the US - no chance. If they were to get real stupid and someone fires the shots then it will not matter who does it- it will be over for Iran. Pure and simple. Iran is not embarassing us at all. We are not powerless to stop them, just what is called a little patience. After all the so called liberals and tree huggers wannt the UN in it anyway. Political special interests are always what controls them. If it all came down it would be over real fast and real quick if the military were allowed to actually fight and not have the idiots like ACLU and all the politicians trying to run it. I have my own opinion on why the policals are sufficating with their head in a dark place but that's another topic better left unsaid.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 12:38 AM
link   
How do you mean lilwolf?

If by airstrikes and sorties is your meaning of win, then... i dont agree.
but if you means troops tanks apc's and so forth cruising into iran and taking over. I think you are wrong

The USA hammering Iran with missles and flybys wont win the war, it'll destroy infrastructure and destroy a few obvious tanks, airfields and so forth
but effectivley iran wont be beaten.
Iran will still hold all the major strongholds,
Iran will still have troops on the ground,
They may have buildings lay in ruins, but all that will do is rally more non military iranians to join in the defence.
If the us was stupid enough to have a ground campaign,
I doubt they could have enough hardware SHIPPED around the world, to the battlefields of iran, and Iraq,
be able to hold SUPPLY lines to 2 different combat zones,
and 2ndly to hold up economically.
More and more foreign fighters will filter in over the borders,
and what you are left with,
is a base in baghdad surrounded by angry iraqi's,
with countless numbers of angry iranians literally marching over the border into iraq. all the US will be able to do is stand in the middle, defending itself.. while jets fly above effectivley dropping millions of dollars resembling bombs to destroy more and more buildings and civilians.

Technology has gotten to a point where no one actually WINS A war.
you both stop fighting because the damage and economic failure becomes to hard.

And for all of you that call the IRAQ invasion a war,
stop looking at it through the USA goggles.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Technology has gotten to a point where no one actually WINS A war.
you both stop fighting because the damage and economic failure becomes to hard.


no politics has gotten to the point where you dont win a war, has been that way since vietnam, and you are a prime example of why.....



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 01:31 AM
link   
what is with the short, posts lacking anything but criticism of posters?
how about some people respect this is a place for discussion on topics, not opinions about posters.

Xphillies, do you think the us won the WAR IN IRAQ?
What war?
I am yet to see this WAR.
When there are TWO armies, fighting for a cause, I will consider it a war.
When one country invades the other country, just walks all the way to the capitol.. this isnt a war.

its a defeat, but not a war.

Iran MAY be a war, in the fact US troops in Iraq will come under attack from IRAN.
2x armies going at each other.

Who will win?
how can there be a winner?

We will be fighting to STOP them from building nuclear weapons.
So let me get this.

Once we've bombed the crap out of them,
wether we've killed hte president or not.
You think that iran is just going to sit there... and say
'' Hey, thank god the US won the war, and killed our leaders, now we can love them, and NOT build nukes ''

hell no,
they are going to be angry,
they are going to try even HARDER .
If we had WON THE WAR, they wouldnt be in a position to be able to be angy and try building nukes.

You cant win a war when your at war bcause of CREATION of nuclear weapons.
what a country CAN do, wether you permit them or not is another thing.
just because us top them the first time doesnt mean you've WON AT ALL.
it just means you've stopped them from creating something, they can quite easily TRY and create again in the future.

WAR, Korea was a War.
Vietnam was a WAR.
hell the first gulf war was.. a war.
why?
because we went in with a Goal,
we knew once we achieved a certain goal, once weve driven the enemy out of land it INVADED and occupied, we would of won the war.

simply flying jets over buildings dropping bombs and stopping the momentary research is not ' winning the war '

How can you win a war, where your fighting against the peoeple of the country your in?
Your not fighting the IRAQI army atm, your fighting iraqi's, because YOUR IN IRAQ.
If you hit Iran, You'll have it DOUBLY bad.
Because you will be at war with IRAN, when the IRAN army marches into baghdad and destroyes the enciricled US Troops, when the IRAQI's take up arms and attack because of the haneous crimes that have been committed in iraq by US troops, and by the various insurgents from other muslim nations who simply want to kill US serviceman for the simple fact they are the USA's soilders.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 01:56 AM
link   
Agit8dChop, while I agree with much of what you're saying, the contradictions don't help your argument.

You can't believe both of these:



Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Who will win?
how can there be a winner?


The rhetorical point being, "no one will win".

Right after this:

God Bless America!
Because Your going to be beaten by Iran.,


In my opinion, Iran is just following suit with N. Korea.

Kim, "we have nukes and are increasing our strike range."

Bush, "O.K., we'll "disarm" Iraq then".

:shk:

Iran has seen (through N.Korea's actions) that the way to get any "respect/diplomacy" from the U.S. admin. is to obtain "real" WMDs.

So it's "crazy like Kim" time, with lots of lip service.

Lets just hope that they don't abuse that capability/responsibility (if they get/have it) or there will be real trouble for all concerned.

[edit on 6/16/06 by redmage]



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 02:18 AM
link   
Thankyou redmage,
a repsonse at the post, instead of a pointless time wasting attack on the POSTER.

In regards to the win comment,

I dont believe there can be a winner in the middleast.
Its like going in circles.
We will attack you because you interfer with middleastern politics and nations.
But we only attack them when they threaten our allies.

So really, how can you win?
If we let iran go as please, I believe they will assist in a terrorist attack in israel using a crude nuke, thats definately a lose because Israel will unleash hell.
Yet, if we go into IRAN with our jets and missles and bomb the crap out of them,
all we are going to do is DELAY there research, kill a lot of innocent people, and stir the hornest nest that is the middleast up EVEN more.
Plus put our troops in Iraq at major risk

Sure we win in terms of stopping them buildinga nuke now..
but not for good. we will probably have to continually take this approach until, they managed to find a way to hide it so well, or so deep we wont be able to hit them.

If we send in troops, well... regardless of some peoples unrealistic USA military might..
troops and tanks on ground will be defeated by Iran.
they have the home advatage,
they have the supply advantage, and the outside influence advantage.
the usa have a supply difficulty, a transport of troops and equipment difficulty, and international support difficulty. Plus the economic strife the US is Already in.

ultimately I believe the US would be pushed back into IRAQ.
Unless the US used these mininukes, which would be the final straw regardless.

the only person who COULD win, is Iran.

I agree with northkorea,
LIL kim stood up, and was let to aquire nukes.
..But.. nkorea is in a situation where they are hated by there surrounding countries.
there people are FORCED into combat.
Going into Nkorea to Disarm kim, not STOP him from aquirering but DISARM him, would ruin the USA.
Kim would use his nukes.
Effectivley, if kim wants nukes he can have them.
he's not worth the lives or us stature.

Iran is no different,
they are worth the lives either.
But they are a threat to Israel.
They are gaining ALOT of power in the region, and the surrounding countries are at a point where they almost support there cause.
Plus they dont have them yet.


[edit on 16-6-2006 by Agit8dChop]



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 02:49 AM
link   
It's remarkable so many people still don't see that Iran is a totally different situation than North Korea is. War is always about money. Apart from the nuclear threat, would there be any other beneficial aspects of invading North Korea? North Korea doesn't have any important natural resources to trade; nor to be taken over by the US. There's no oil, there's no Euro Oil Bourse to come.

Iran in contrast, has oil reserves, and is going to trade it in Euros, which would be catastrophic for the US (and world) economy. This scenario is not just the work of one man, Bush, warnings from the Fed. And economic gurus made the US governments already aware of this doom-scenario two decades ago, which is why the US has carefully made a plan of action almost two decades ago.
An oil bourse does contain two advantages for Iran:
- it would force the US on its knees, if the US decides not to launch an attack, and
thus wouldn’t prevent Iran from actually introducing the bourse. Compare it to a SWOT analysis, which is what the Iranian government did on the US, the strength of the US is it’s military; no country in the world can match that of the US. However, the weakness in contrast, is it’s economy.
If it’s really not about preventing, or postponing the Dollar from collapsing, then why do you think:

-Harry Schultz, the highest paid investment consultant, at USD 2400,- / hour, in weekends USD 3400,- /h (Guinness book of records) warns for such a collapse as well (Really, if you tell non sense, you won’t be able to get such a salary).

-The Fed stopped reporting the M3

-Bill Gates, surrounded by the best investment advisors, pulls out capital from the US
-Warren Buffet pulled out almost 50% of his capital from the US, if there’s no threat at all?

-Companies starting to pull out US assets.

-The Fed gave bank managers the assignment how to act in time of an economic collapse.

-The US inflation is actually 2% higher than stated, as stated by a respectable bank (No CIA fact book crap, as I stated before they aren’t even capable to do their security and intelligence job, let alone making difficult economic calculations, the Iraqi WMDs proved that).

-Respectable banks write essays on the live after the Dollar collapse.

-Economically, it would be beneficial, as the Euro is a strong currency, and such a bourse would have a domino effect on other countries, which will be forced to start stocking Euro reserves, which furthermore is a great way to indoctrinate the Iranian people, as such a bourse would improve their current living standard.

That's my opinion on the whole Iran issue.




[edit on 16-6-2006 by Mdv2]



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 02:50 AM
link   
Iran: We Will Never Bow to USA?

How about a curtsy, then?


Or a wink and a nod? Or a little beauty queen wave?

Come on, throw us a bone here!


Really, we don't have to be so formal about it.


Of course, the strategies of the U.S., Iran and all the other players in this grand drama are not determined by journalists -- though far too many seem to think so.

So this is all pretty much a dog and pony show for our benefit.

That doesn't mean we can't enjoy it.

Unless we forget it's all a game.



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mdv2
It's remarkable so many people still don't see that Iran is a totally different situation than North Korea is.


Since I was the one who brouoght up N. Korea it appears that this was somewhat directed my way, and let me say, you assume too much.

Of course they're different, and of course, money/oil is a major factor here but, our (U.S. proffits) interests are not the only thing in play on this one. Russia and China's motives are also to take into account. Do you believe that they (Russia & China) would really "support" an unprovoked Iranian strike on Israel if the Iranian president chose to follow through on his threats unilaterally? How much "support" would they give? Why are they bolstering his confidence with this "support". Are they using Iran like the U.S.S.R. did with the N. Vietnamese, or like we used the mujahideen in Afghanistan during the Soviet Afghan war in the 80s? China already almost has the power to singlehandedly send our economy into a likely spiral, with how much of our debt they have currently "bought up", should they decide to "cash in". Us getting dragged into a war with Iran could certainly strengthen and bolster both Russia and China's positions in the global scheme of things. Have they decided "enough's enough", and it's time to take the U.S. empire down a few notches? This seemingly two-faced alliance if far more concerning than just the Iranian president's saber rattling or U.S. oil interests. Saddly, this could be the spark that ignites WWIII. To me, Iran seems like it could be just a pawn in a much larger game of chess. This is not just about the U.S. gaining money/oil.

P.S. N. Korea does have resources, mostly in the form of metals and minerals, it's food they lack. Where as S. Korea has food, but lacks metals and minerals. Kinda ironic, they'd be almost "set" if they could just get along.

[edit on 6/16/06 by redmage]



posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by redmage

Since I was the one who brouoght up N. Korea it appears that this was somewhat directed my way, and let me say, you assume too much.

Of course they're different, and of course, money/oil is a major factor here but, our (U.S. proffits) interests are not the only thing in play on this one. Russia and China's motives are also to take into account. Do you believe that they (Russia & China) would really "support" an unprovoked Iranian strike on Israel if the Iranian president chose to follow through on his threats unilaterally? How much "support" would they give? Why are they bolstering his confidence with this "support". Are they using Iran like the U.S.S.R. did with the N. Vietnamese, or like we used the mujahideen in Afghanistan during the Soviet Afghan war in the 80s? China already almost has the power to singlehandedly send our economy into a likely spiral, with how much of our debt they have currently "bought up", should they decide to "cash in". Us getting dragged into a war with Iran could certainly strengthen and bolster both Russia and China's positions in the global scheme of things. Have they decided "enough's enough", and it's time to take the U.S. empire down a few notches? This seemingly two-faced alliance if far more concerning than just the Iranian president's saber rattling or U.S. oil interests. Saddly, this could be the spark that ignites WWIII.


Can you please clarify the link with North Korea? However, with regard to your statements. Russia benefits from both situations.

The pre-war (current) situation:
-Building contracts for nuclear facilities
-Weapon supply
-Enormously increasing profits in the export of natural resources, such as oil and gas.

The same would apply to this situation in war. The US urged Russia to stop supplying weapons, which they of course don't do. Something I personally agree with.
If a war with Iran really is going to occur, the price of oil will increase enormously, and thus Russia's profits.
There's hardly any possibility to force Russia to stop supplying weapons to Iran during such a war, as Russia's economy doesn't depend as much on the US as the economy of China.

China currently needs Iran to fulfill its demand for natural gasses, and will do everything to prevent a war, they now benefit from both sides. If a war actually occurs, China will probably be neutral, and if necessarry cut off the ties with Iran, as the US is at the moment still more important than Iran. Furthermore, a war would not be in their interest, as it would further increase oil prices, which would slow down its economical growth. Without the US there's actually no China, but for how long?

The entire world will suffer from such a war, western countries the most, and the US in specific.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join